Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

JL>la lojbab cusku di'e
JL>
JL>> I don't see the problem.  If you want exactly one box, you want
JL>> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'.  That means 'any box' unless I have
JL>> missed the point of this discussion.
JL>
JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
JL>I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".

No, I don't think that is a correct translation.  It means "I need exactly
one out of the set of things that 'box'.  It is not specific as to which of
the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
and it veridically is a box.  (I can't remeber what it means if there is
no such thing as a box, cf. "I need a unicorn", but it has been discussed.)

I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u  da tanxe gi'e se nitcu mi"
"lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.

TLI Loglan does not have a "lo" - their closest equivalent "lea" is pretty
much equivalent to "rolo", but I do not believe there has been any discussion
of usage with a non-"ro" quantifier before the "lea"  (it is probably permitted
by their grammar, but it is not necessarily defined in meaning).  TLI
Loglan has only "le" for individuation, and "le" is indeed specific in both
versions of the language.  Of course "le" is also intensional and thus a
speaker can claim that any useful occurance of a box that turns up just
happens to be 'the' box that he had in mind.

You might also be able to do something with "pa lu'a roda poi tanxe (or
ro lo tanxe, or ro tanxe).

But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
benefit of R Holmes).

lojbab